1. - This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner Manish Pahadia seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 1 who has been granted bail vide order dated 13th February, 2009 rendered by the learned District & Session Judge, Baran.

2. Contextual facts depict that on 7th December, 2008 at about 4:00 pm, the respondent accused Smt. Sanju Bai poured kerosene oil on her mother-in-law Kanchan Bai and ignited fire with match-stick in her in-law's house situated at Krishna Colony, Baran. It is further alleged that Nakul and Rituraj came forward and endeavoured to save their mother from fire but in that process they also sustained burn injuries. Ultimately, all the three Kanchan Bai, Rinku @ Rituraj and Nakul succumbed to burn injuries during their treatment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the following grounds:-

(i) That the most horrendous act of the accused Sanju Bai by way of pouring kerosene oil on Kanchan Bai gulped down three precious lives of Kanchan Bai, Rituraj and Nakul. The offence despite being of such a grave nature, the learned Sessions Judge, Baran, granted anticipatory bail to the accused, which is a matter of serious concern. The Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13th February, 2009 arbitrarily, which warrants to be cancelled.

(ii)That the learned trial court has exercised the discretion vested in him vis-a-vis grant of bail in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, as there was no legal and justified occasion to pass the impugned order granting the bail, specially when the bail was declined by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.1.2009 and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.1.2009.

(iii)That the learned trial court also ignored the observation of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.1.2009 recorded in the petition preferred by the respondent for the quashing of the FIR and other relief which is as under:-

"Suffice it to observe that a perusal of the case diary reveals that it was only the petitioner who is prima facie responsible for the death of three persons."

(iv)That the learned trial court has passed the impugned order in violation of the various judicial pronouncements, therefore, the impugned order is hit by Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

(v)That the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order on irrelevant considerations and the considerations which were not legal and legitimate.

4. Respondent no. 1 assailed the maintainability of the petition and submitted that neither the complainant Manish Pahadia was the complainant nor have any grievance directly or indirectly, hence, he had no locus standi to file the application for cancellation of bail. Rebutting all the grounds of seeking cancellation of bail and the story of burn accident as put forth by the petitioner, respondent no. 1 submitted that she was married to Late Shri Rituraj Pahadia, the brother of the petitioner and after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, her brother-in-law and asked to bring dowry from her father. Albeit, the members of their family used to talk her with sweet tounge but they hatched a conspiracy to kill her by way of pouring in petrol over her. It has been alleged by the accused Sanju Bai that on the fateful day, petrol was poured on her at about 4:00 pm and the fire was ignited as a result of which she sustained 35% to 70% dry burn over her body. Her mother-in-law, brother-in-law Nakul and husband Rituraj endeavoured to save her but they also caught fire flames and sustained burn injuries. All the four, her mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law including respondent no. 1 were taken to Government Hospital, Baran, where they were referred to be taken to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota but the petitioner Manish Pahadia took his mother, and both the